SHAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHAM Sunder petitioner was tried and convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1500/ - by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahendergarh, on November 10, 1981. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge. Narnaul, upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to three months and the fine to Rs. 500/ -. Feeling aggrieved, he has come up in revision.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations are that the Government Food Inspector who visited the shop of the petitioner, purchased Ajwain (Bishop's weed) from him for analysis in the presence of Dr. N.S. Sangwan, Medicial Officer, who had accompanied the Food Inspector. After completing the formalities, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found the same to be adulterated as it contained one rat dropping and extraneous organic matter to the extent of 8.8% against the maximum drescribed standard of 3%. This led to the prosectuion of the petitioner and his ultimate conviction and sentence.

(3.) THE only point pressed upon me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing on the record to show that before taking sample of Ajwain, the same was made homogeneous by the Food Inspector or by his associate. The Courts below, however, a accepted the evidence of the Food Inspector at its face value that the contents of Ajwain had been made homogeneous and ruled out the defence plea that the same was not made homogeneous before the sample was taken. There appears to be merit in the submission of the learned defence counsel. On the point of Food Inspector has, no doubt, stated at the trial that Ajwain was made homogeneous before the same was purchased but in the complaint filed by him in the trial Court, it is nowhere mentioned that Ajwain was made homogeneous. It is necessary for the Food Inspector to take the sample in such a manner that the sample may be true representative. It is no answer that it is for the vendor to give a proper sample. Since a duty is cast on the Food Inspector in this respect he must perform his duties according to law. The manner, in which the sample has been taken in the present case, cannot be said to be a proper one an d the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.